Editors

While a minor point, tagging this file has made me realize that it's not really appropiate to link an editor of a book to Scores Edited by So and So, since it's text rather than an actual musical score. Since it's not musical per se (although neither was the translation template), what do you think we should do with it? There are not enough of these to be of concern yet, but it's something worth taking a look at in the near future. I would suggest, perhaps, instead of having the overarching editorial category that reads "Scores edited by" moved to possibly read "works edited by", which would then encompass both the editors for musical works and musical literature. Lndlewis10 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of these two collections of Folksongs it's clear: 2 books full of musical scores. Instead of Complete Book I had also the option to write Complete Scores.But in principle you're right - the number of writings, treatises etc. at IMSLP increases; and Helmholtz (On the Sensations of Tone e.g.) isn't a composer, his book is not a score and not written in romantic style. I think the best is to ask P.davydov. --Ralph Theo Misch 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but I don't think there's an easy answer. Using "Works edited by..." would in most cases be inaccurate, as it's not the work as a whole, but rather an individual edition that's been edited. I think the same could be said for "Books edited by...", as that implies that all editions of a particular book were overseen by a particular editor, which isn't necessarily the case either. "Editions edited by..." would be the most correct, but could we live with the tautology? — P.davydov 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How about avoiding the tautology by using "publications edited by"? Not that it matter much any more though ;) Lndlewis10 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)